Europe

The new right wing government in Sweden did not even enjoy a short
‘honeymoon’ with the population. It came to power in September and by
November its support plummeted.

The reason for this is the government’s budget proposals and, in
particular, the plan to make drastic cuts to the unemployment
insurance-system (a-kassa), which, in turn, paves the way for more
low-pay jobs. While workers, the unemployed and the sick have to pay
more, the rich and big companies pay lower taxes.

The budget, introduced in October, was immediately followed by a storm
of protest, at least by recent Swedish standards. “Rarely has a proposal
made by the government caused so much criticism”, commented the Swedish
financial newspaper, ‘Dagens Industri’ (‘Today’s Business’), in its
editorial.

The attacks on unemployment insurance immediately provoked widespread
anger. Many, who voted for the traditional bosses’ parties, in the month
before, felt betrayed.

Instead of a “policy for jobs” (‘Putting Sweden to work’), as the
rightwing parties promised in the election, the government announced a
policy of attacks against the long-term unemployed, and part-time, low
paid, female workers – a policy aimed at undermining the strength of the
trade union movement.

Sweden has changed over the last weeks and workers’ opposition now makes
media headlines. This represents the first sign a fight-back movement.
“Enough is enough”, said one metal union branch in a statement demanding
a strike against the government. Nearly 75% of those who voted in
‘Aftonbladet’s’ (the biggest Swedish daily paper) web-poll supported the
call for a strike against the government.

Demonstrations were held against the government and a small syndicalist
union even organised a strike on 15 November. The following day, trade
unions in one region organised demonstrations in three cities. Weekly
demonstrations are held, every Monday, outside the prime minister’s
office.

Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI in Sweden) campaigns for a political
strike against the government on 14 December, the same day as the
Swedish TUC plans a ‘Day of Protest’ (not strikes). A substantial number
of trade union branches raised the same demand.

A nationwide strike and mass demonstrations, on 14 December, would be
the most powerful and effective response to the right wing policies of
the government.

However, the present level of workers’ anger, and the demand for a
strike, frightened not just the government, but trade union leaders, as
well.

“In a democracy, everyone has the right to have their say, but political
strikes are undemocratic and overrules the election result”, commented
the Employment Minister, Sven Otto Littorin.

The trade union leaders say exactly the same. “A political strike is the
last resort and could only be used in the defence of the Constitution”,
claimed one union leader.

The TUC leaders have started a campaign to defend their no
strike-position. The government just has to sit back, while the union
leaders, in public, denounce workers that demand a resolute stand.

Super-profits for rich

The cut in unemployment benefit is part of a programme of profound
changes concerning the labour market, to force down wages and to
maintain the present record level of profits for the super-rich. The
government does not even hide the aim of their policies is to create
what is called a “low-wage market”, beginning with the service sector.

There are also other government proposals leading to that conclusion;
including proposals for tax reductions on private individuals’ purchases
of domestic services, which are expected be enacted on 1 July 2007. This
means the state subsidises domestic services for the better-off, while
those people doing domestic labour will, of course, receive very little
in wages.

To get unemployment benefit it is necessary to pay a monthly fee in to
the Unemployment Insurance Funds, which are directly linked to the trade
unions (The fee comes out of monthly trade union subscriptions, which
explains the high level of union organisation).

There are 36 Unemployment Insurance Funds, with approximately 3.8
million members. The Funds, however, are mainly financed by the state,
and the government aims to make the scheme more “self-financing”, and to
break the link to the unions. An inquiry will be set up to investigate
and propose structures for compulsory, state-controlled unemployment
insurance, which is not linked to the unions. The first step towards
this new policy is to compel workers to pay more to the funds (the
charges will rise by € 22.2 to € 33.3 (SEK 200 to 300) per month), as
well as cutting allowances. These changes, which triggered the
opposition movement, will come into force on 1 January 2007.

Today’s unemployment benefit is 80% of income, but the government wants
to cut it down to 70%, after more than 200 days of unemployment, and to
only 65 % after 300 days. The maximum daily allowance will also be cut
from € 81.00 (SEK 730) during the first 100 days, to € 75.5 (SEK 680).
The long-term unemployed will loose out badly, by at least € 444. (SEK
4,000) each month.

Even today, an unemployed person could be forced to accept a job paying
10 per cent less than the daily cash benefit they are entitled to get.
However, after New Year, an already low paid worker earning € 1880. (SEK
17 000) a month, can end up in a job paying just € 1111. (SEK 10,000), a
month, after 300 days on jobless benefits.

This is how the new market of low paid jobs will be created; a labour
market “in-line” with the rest of the capitalist Europe. This is not
about creating ‘new jobs’, as the government claims, but “old” jobs
paying less. And lower wage jobs tend to lower general wage levels. The
government hopes that lower unemployment benefit will force workers to
take accept worse conditions.

But worsening conditions will not stop there. People will have to work
longer and it will take longer to qualify for unemployment benefit.
Students, who finish their studies, will no longer be entitled to
unemployment benefit after 10 months, as is the case today. The jobless
could also be fined if they are “not actively seeking work”.

It is striking that even the ‘Council of Laws’, a body of judges who
investigate every proposal made by the government before they become
law, said the so-called reforms discriminate against women, who earn
less, and often only part-time.

Start of wider cuts

But the present opposition movement to these attacks is not only about
defending the Unemployment Insurance scheme. Many workers also feel this
is only the beginning of wider cuts and attacks. If the government
manage to carry out these proposals, new and even more severe attacks
will follow, particularly as the economy is slowing down.

It is also clear that the government aims to weaken the trade unions, by
making it too expensive to be a trade union member or even being a
member of a National Insurance Fund. (To rub salt into the wound, the
government also proposed that tax deductions for trade union membership
fees, and contributions to unemployment insurance funds, should be
cancelled).

The government aims to make it cheaper and easier to hire workers, which
is another way of saying it should be easier to fire workers.

More than 600,000 workers got unemployment benefit, last year, and the
proposed changes will affect 100,000s, who will be next out a job.

The level of unemployment is falling, due to present economic boom, but
there are still many more job seekers than vacancies. And more people
will be unemployed after the government abolishes many job-schemes, next
year.

Only mass struggle and decisive action can defeat the government. The
initiative has to come from below, to build a movement strong enough to
force the union leaders to act. Such a movement is on the rise and that
is why the TUC was compelled to organise a protest on 14 December.

But it is not enough to just let off steam. The most combative section
of the working class learnt by experience that struggle has to go beyond
petitions, street meetings, and even demonstrations. The call for a
strike reflects the need to build a national movement, as well as
showing ways to develop the struggle further than the opposition to cuts
in the 1990s.

This approach was summed up in a letter from several miners’ union
branches to the leaders of the TUC: “Why does the TUC not regard a
political strike as an effective weapon? A strike on 14 December is far
more effective than letters to the papers...do the leaders have any
knowledge of what know the members think and want...?The TUC has lost
ideology and that is why the trade union movement has to find ways back
to its historical roots.”

The letter was in reply to a scandalous comment by the TUC Secretary,
who said a political strike was not in members’ interests because it put
in question the parliamentary system. This is the same as saying the
trade union movement could never stage a strike against government
policy. The same argument could be used against any kind of protest. The
union leaders are not even prepared to fight when the future of the
unions are at stake!

The union leaders are also wrong to argue that political strikes are not
a tradition of the workers’ movement. Political strikes were always part
of the arsenal of workers’ struggles. One of the most successful strikes
in Sweden was a three-day strike for the right to vote, organised by the
TUC in 1902. This mass action forced the government to back down and won
new members for the unions. In 1928, the TUC organised a national strike
against anti-trade union laws.

Since then, the call for a political strike was part of every big
movement against previous governments, particularly since the beginning
of the 1990s.

The political strike call was a prominent part of last year’s movement
against the transport company, ‘Connex Sweden’, after it sacked Per
Johansson (chairperson of the metro drivers’ union in Stockholm).

Fight-back begins

For a long time, unemployment benefit was 90 % of income. It was a
right-wing government (1991-94) that reduced payments to 80%. This
provoked mass anger and demonstrations and eventually the right wing
parties were kicked out office in the 1994 general election.

The CWI in Sweden (then called ‘Offensiv’), played a key role in the
grass roots upheaval, forcing the TUC leaders, reluctantly, to organise
national protests on 6 October 1992 and in 1993 (the ‘Day of Justice’).

In 1996, the social democratic government decided to make further cuts
to Unemployment Insurance (by, in practice, reducing benefits to 75%)
which provoked more mass opposition, bringing Sweden very close to a
complete stand-still.

The situation today is not exactly the same as ten years ago - the
protest movement has not yet reached the same scale - but still it marks
a beginning of a new situation.

At least, in embryonic form, a new rank-and-file movement is born in the
unions and a process of union members’ re-activation is taking place.

The last weeks mark the beginning of workers’ fight-back, after years of
low activity, when many heads went down, due to a lack of confidence and
fighting morale because of setbacks and the severe economic crisis of
the 1990s. This was combined with the treacherous role of the union
leaders, who blocked the road to struggle.

Over the last years, big business profits soared, and every chief
executive awarded themselves bonus and wage increases on a scale never
seen before. The wages’ share of production is down to 1940s levels,
and, next year, share-holders in Sweden will, in total, get € 29.4
billion (SEK 265 billion) from dividend payments, which is more than one
third of the state budget expenditure for 2007. Some companies are
paying much more in dividends than they invest, and the number of
billionaires in Sweden has doubled over the last ten years.

The current economic recovery is made on the backs of workers and
created a huge gap between incomes. The boom left many workers behind,
particular low-paid, single parents, while the unemployed figures
increased, despite three years economic expansion (this partly explains
why the social democrats were voted out of office, in September 2006).

But when the new government announced plans to accelerate and intensify
the same old right wing policies, mass anger erupted, changing the
political climate in the course of just two months.